MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 27 November 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001059742

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson
Mr. John T. Meixell		Member
Mr. Lester Echols		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: The applicant states, in effect, that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded, that his prior enlistments of honorable service should warrant some recognition, and that while his “conduct was assuredly less than scholar it was not dishonorable under any circumstances.” He also states in summary, in his personal statement, that he developed an alcohol problem and was diagnosed with combat fatigue and was given medication to calm his nerves. He further states that he is not proud of the circumstances that resulted in his separation from service; however, he is proud of his service, that was as it should have been. His final DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows his Reentry (RE) Code as “3” which he interprets, that given the need of the government, it could or would disregard his discharge, and entitle him to reenter active duty. He goes on to state that an honest evaluation of the facts and a decision based on the facts should be considered in his case and that his discharge should be upgraded in order to receive Veterans benefits. In support of his application he submits three DD Forms 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and a personal statement.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 18 September 1967, as an infantry indirect fire crewman. He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 27 June 1968, in order to reenlist. He reenlisted on 28 June 1968, and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 26 February 1970, in order to reenlist. He reenlisted on 27 February 1970. He served in Vietnam from 21 April 1970 to 20 April 1971.

The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was AWOL from 6 to 11 May 1971 (6 days).

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 6 September 1972, of being AWOL from 6 May 1971 to 3 April 1972 (322 days). His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor for 3 months.

His DA Form 20 also shows that he was AWOL from 5 to 21 March 1973
(17 days), 5 to 9 July 1973 (5 days), and from 10 July to 14 September 1973
(67 days).

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 19 September 1973, and was found qualified for separation.





The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 24 October 1973, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.
He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He had a total of
4 years, 11 months, and 23 days of creditable service and had 411 days of lost
time due to AWOL. He was issued an RE code of RE “3”.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges
have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
discharge.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. Certain persons who have received nonjudical punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. The applicant’s personal statement provided no compelling information to form a basis to change his character of service for his last discharge. The Board notes the applicant’s excessive amount of lost time due to AWOL which is too serious to be excused or to warrant relief.

2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3. The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

4. The quality of his last period of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge. The periods of service ending on 27 June 1968, and on 26 February 1970, are considered honorable; therefore, Veterans benefits would be based on that fact.

5. The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application, or the evidence of record, that the RE code issued to him on 24 October 1973, was incorrect.

6. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ao___ __jm___ __le____ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059742
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20011127
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19731024
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 10
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 189
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.